When the Smith and Nasht came to our house (on behalf of the ABC) to take footage for the “I can change your mind” documentary, David and I asked fellow skeptic and camera-man Barry Corke if he could film them filming us, so we have our own copy of what happened. He agreed — it was obvious to all of us that we needed some insurance against biased edits. We all knew that petty chicanery was possible. James Delingpole had recently given the BBC three good hours of his time, only to find they trimmed all of his clever answers down, waited for him to have a hypoglycemic vague moment and then crowed about how the great James Delingpole was, can you believe, tongue tied (the failure!)

In the final version that went to air, not only did three of the four key sets of evidence that fuel our skepticism vanish, the editors split and diced sentences to make it appear that David said a sentence he never actually said. He doesn’t think the poorly sited thermometers show the “models were wrong” (we have much better evidence than that); that’s illogical and absurd. Everything I said of any substance was edited out (which I’m kinda proud of). They came all that way to watch me try to convince Anna Rose, then left me with 18 bland words. Perhaps what I discussed (and Anna’s weak replies) was too dangerous, not easy to mock, and they couldn’t ambush Nick Minchin with any experts that could debunk what I said?

Obviously Smith &Nasht were on a fishing trip here (funded by you and me). They were fishing for ways to discredit skeptics. In the end they had to resort to deleting 75% of the evidence, and 100% of my points. Blind commentators later claimed that the bloggers had no credibility. Easy for them to say when they didn’t see most of what we said or the data we presented.

We were called paranoid for setting up our own recording, but it took one phone call, cost us nothing, and we have a copy, so now (ok, belatedly) the world can decide. Did the ABC fairly represent our views? Were Smith and Nasht serving the public?

There were two independent cameras there on the day:

* UPDATE: For the moment, both these videos have only about 26 minutes of sound. We’re working on an alternative. But it may take a while. (Darn).

View 1 was the main better camera, shot from close up and behind. View 2 is the secondary camera, shot from in front, but more distant. View one is better quality, but you may get tired of looking at my back. All footage thanks to the helpful, talented, Barry Corke.

View 1

View 2

Wise adults are aware that if the editors are not on your side, then all your best moments become invisible, but if you goof it up it’ll be a feature story in Fairfax or the Guardian by the day after tomorrow (as per James). The journalists and editors of taxpayer funded organizations are not even pretending to be impartial anymore. Presumably they justify tossing their journalistic principles to the wind because government-funded-documentary-makers (who are friends of the ABC) “know” the answers to Life, The Universe and Everything, so lies by omission are OK, because the dumb punters might get confused. Alas, once upon a time, a good journalist kept their opinion invisible; now, instead, it’s everything else that’s invisible.

Apologies that this has taken so long to arrange — that Exxon cheque is still missing — but I’m sure people will find this interesting nonetheless. It’s a rare moment when skeptics and believers are in the same room and it’s all caught on camera. Plus, for skeptics who do media work, it’s good practice. (Lesson #1: Bring your own camera).

The Background

Anna Rose and Nick Minchin travelled all over the world (some 65,000 km) with hours of footage, and Jo and David’s kitchen ended up being 4 minutes and 20 seconds of a 60 minute documentary. It’s tough editing hours of footage, but therein lies the skill — the point of the doco was “to change people’s minds”. So the essence of each interview should have been to capture the strongest and weakest points of both sides — to help the audience understand why Anna is so worried about the climate, and why the skeptics are every bit as worried but about corruption, freedom, and the scientific method (not to mention, our National economy).

Where was the Evidence?

David and I made it absolutely clear that we held our positions because of the evidence (between us we mentioned the word “evidence” nearly 100 times). But this wouldn’t have fitted with the theme later in the show where Smith and Nasht get psychologists to explain that it’s really all about “ideology”, and skeptics are skeptics because they’re old white males. (Like Jo right?) An honest doco would have taken care to at least let David and I explain our position. David showed four pieces of evidence that showed the models are wrong, yet the editors completely removed any reference to three of the four key pieces of evidence. This is despite the graphs being filmed twice, and referred to repeatedly by both David and myself in preps and in the filming. Indeed, I mentioned “28 million radiosondes” five times (a reference to the missing hot spot). Later, David pointed out that ignoring the poor siting of thermometers is one way the modelers conceal the failure of their models. The editors jumbled these two aspects together with tricky snipping to suggest that the photos of thermometers were one of our “two” key points of evidence for the failure of the models.

That number is important: we clearly presented four pieces of evidence (1. models overestimated air temperatures from 1990, 2. models overestimated ocean warming since when we started measuring it properly in 2003, 3. models predict a pattern of atmospheric warming — responsible for most of the warming in the models — that is entirely missing from copious weather balloon measurements, and 4. models predict outgoing radiation increases with surface rising surface temperature when satellite measurements show the opposite). But they moved David’s words around (by cutting and pasting) to make it appear he said he presented two pieces (which he never said), and to make it appear as if the dodgy land thermometers were one of those two pieces of evidence. Net result: they actively concealed from the audience, by trickery, the evidence that mattered and that we presented four independent sets of data in support of our position.

Those photos of thermometers show the scientists are being unscientific, and that the media are not reporting banal and obvious problems that no one needs a PhD to understand (which both David and I explained). No sane person would use them as evidence of model failure.

Does it matter? Absolutely. The documentary was funded by the people of Australia so they could understand the debate better, and was advertised as an effort to understand both points of view. The producers can argue they had to entertain people, this was a reality TV show — yet the entertaining points of high conflict were edited out (the times Anna Rose laid out her best ad hom’s and we sliced the points in seconds). The editors went to great trouble to rearrange sentences and images to create the impression that skeptics couldn’t make a decent argument and had little thought behind their case. It would have taken hours to find and splice up separate audio and visual snippets to “create” a false argument. It allowed commentators to declare the bloggers had nothing much of value — just kitchen “science”.

These oblique poorly lit shots are not the ones used by doco makers who want the audience to see the graph. Imagine if financial graphs were shown on the news each night like this?

Before the event David and I agreed to divvy up the points. He would do the models, and I would do the money, the fake insurance arguments, the dire effect on the poor etc etc.

From the two hours of footage this is all that’s left of what I said:

Jo: Carbon dioxide.

Jo: There’s some small immeasurable amount.

Jo: The data says –

Joanne: (Laughs)

Jo: The planet is not going to be destroyed.

This is what they could have used

Jo on models:

They have … assumptions about things like water vapor. This two thirds [she says -- while pointing at a top section of a graph of warming projections] is due to feedbacks and the biggest feedback is water vapor…. the real debate here, the $2 trillion guess, is whether humidity rises up and turns into clouds and rains out or whether it goes up to 10 kilometers and sticks around and acts to thicken the blanket and make the planet even warmer still. That’s where the 28 million radiosondes, the weather balloons that have been recording since 1959 are really important. They show no increase in humidity.

Jo on the consensus:

“…people have put in $79 billion, … to pay scientists to find a crisis. So those scientists have done what they’re paid to do, they’ve looked at every possible angle and every possible cause to put out a paper on the question they’ve been asked to study. No-one’s been asked to study the other side, no-one’s been paid to audit the IPCC, to find holes in the theory, there are no grants for skeptics to come out and say hey, we’d like to look at these climate models and we’d like to produce a climate model based on say solar magnetic factors. So it’s totally monopolistic science…”

Jo on the money:

“Let’s just put some perspective on this. Climate trading last year was $144 billion turned over worldwide. Investment in renewable energy was $243 billion. None of this has anything to do with the science, the science comes back to the evidence, always the empirical evidence. “

Jo on her funding:

“David and I have spent thousands on this, it’s cost us thousands of dollars to run my blog, to work for three years nearly full time to do this and the fact that I did this one [The Skeptics Handbook] for nothing pretty much shows that any intent I have in this is not about earning the money.”

Jo and vested interests:

“…one of the things that quite scares me is that if we get, a global scheme, they were talking about $2 trillion turning over each year, the largest commodity market, bearing in mind it’s not a commodity, it’s just paper certificates for air over China, …the people who are really going to win are the big bankers who have been pushing for this, the giant financial houses like Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan are going to make money on every trade, no matter who buys or who sells, no matter whether the cost is high or low. They’re going to make money because they’re the brokers in a massive trading scheme. No wonder those guys are keen to push it and Deutsche Bank are putting out information booklets on the climate.

Jo on the precautionary principle:

It’s a bogus law of science. … if you were to spend, as Obama is planning to, $3.4 billion on carbon sequestration, to pump carbon underground and store it underground, that’s $3.4 billion which could be used to provide 46 million people with operations to cure their vision,… 46 million people who could be cured of blindness, 100 million could be given clean water and you’re choosing to say: “well we better stuff that carbon underground and let the 46 million go blind”. What do you say to the mother in Tanzania who loses three kids to dysentery because they haven’t got clean water? You say “I’m sorry about your kids, it was worth it though because we’ve changed world temperatures by 0.00001 degree in over 50 years.”

Obviously, the ABC did not think the public ought know that David and I are volunteers, that the Big Money is not from Big-Oil, but from Big Government and Big Banks. They also did not think it worth mentioning that skeptics are skeptics because we have the data, while alarmists rely solely on the models — and why that is a huge problem with roots in the Enlightenment and the meaning of science.

Look out for the point where Anna Rose suddenly realizes that skeptics agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was news to her. Otherwise, she’s come prepared with “research” from DeSmog, Deltoid, and if John Cook tried to prime her with some science, he’d have to admit he failed.

Jo and David’s kitchen | View 2. Small distant camera from the front.

Hide the other volunteer too:

In the final doco, the ABC told the world we “hired a camera man.” But they were wrong. They assumed we had, but Barry did it all unpaid. The Smith & Nasht team turned up with legal releases we were to sign, then noticed we had our own cameras, and were a bit flummoxed. We wrote up our legal releases on the spot which said essentially: “Ditto. What-they-wrote”, but it took calls to Sydney, and retreats outside, and much discussion before anyone would sign our form. The irony being that since Barry owns this footage completely, and no one asked him to sign anything, he can do what he likes with it. All the argy bargy over the “releases” was pretty much irrelevant.

If anyone else wants to edit the long footage (which would make it so much more accessible)… please leave a comment below, email us at supportATjoannenova.com.au or talk to Barry.

Mostly it’s a question of priorities and finances. We couldn’t get the full video immediately, Barry lives on a farm without broadband. Then David and I went on a two week, long-awaited, family holiday, and my site was moved (to trial a cheaper option). Alas the site wasn’t stable and was attacked over the next four months. An editor of a mainstream publication was interested but went away for 5 weeks. By the time the planets aligned the carbon tax was in, Professors were calling us nutters, our free speech was threatened, and frankly, this expensive ABC effort was just one of a constant stream of attacks. Plus, without a paid researcher, or finances to host this on a high bandwidth site, there was also the problem of figuring out where to put the giant 1.3 Gb files. In the end, it’s a message that if we take our freedom seriously, we have to admit that there is a tiny thin layer of people working to counteract thousands of paid workers with billions of dollars. This doco had government money, a government TV channel, a government sponsored advertising campaign, and a government sponsored live panel hour. Skeptics have wit, evidence, and whatever funds they earned themselves from other jobs (and a few donations –thanks!). It’s time we think about better ways to support the watchers. I’m sorry I didn’t ask for funding from the crowd to help get this out faster. In hindsight, I should have. (Speaking of which, perhaps I could set something up for those who want to make regular monthly contributions? If half the readers here gave just a tiny $1 per month I’d be set. More to the point, there would be a hot career path option for independent writers, critics, and other people working to keep government accountable. In the long run, we need professionals to defend this tiny pinnacle of freedom and science that others have strived for thousands of years to achieve.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 9.0/10 (183 votes cast)

ABC Doco "UnCut": Evans, Nova, Minchin and Rose -- the full unedited video, 9.0 out of 10 based on 183 ratings

Remember, the ABC has some plausible deniability – possibly they only saw the final Smith & Nasht video. We all know they hosted the Q&A afterwards though, where Matthew England was mic’ed up front and centre, to tell ridiculous untruths (like the IPCC was “very accurate” in 1990), no skeptics were invited to support Nick Minchin. The usual loaded panel made sure that the real issues of the “cause” of climate change could not be discussed.

The warmist trolls are noticeable quiet (ie, absent) on this thread. Not especially surprising given the indefensibility of such blatant, one-eyed misrepresentation. I’m reminded of the episode of “Frontline”, ironically on the ABC, where the fellow being interviewed wanted to tell his side of the story and politely and eagerly ushered the reporter in, only for them to edit the clip and play it backwards so it looked like he slammed the door in their face in guilt ridden anger. And this was to suggest that the tactics of a Mike Willesee, or similar “Current Affairs” host, were unconscionable and of course something to which the ABC would not stoop. How times have changed!

I’d really like the trolls to explain how the case therefore for CAGW is so watertight and beyond even the vaguest criticism, yet they and their acolytes deem it necessary to resort to selective editing of opponents to bolster their argument. Surely, the “facts” should speak for themselves, right guys?

As to Matt England, that ambush on the Q&A segment had all the subtlety of a brick, and showed him up for the unscientific activist I believe he is. The ABC has no excuse for its handling of this, and it reflects a pattern of propaganda misinformation on a number of topics spreading back over at least a decade. As a one time nearly total viewer of the ABC and its programs, I now refuse to watch anything thereon on principle. Cohers, I quite agree that the ABC’s influence has become “poisonous” as you suggest, and as such it does not reflect the interests of the society it pretends to represent, and hence it does not deserve to continue to draw on the taxpayer’s largesse that is its privilege, NOT its right.

Here is the relevant part in the last of a series of email exchanges with the ABC Complaints Rejection Unit, (officially known as Audience and Consumer Affairs or A&CA)

To Bob F-J

With regard to your points 1 and 2, it is only within our remit to judge whether or not the program complied with editorial requirements. We are satisfied that it did.

In particular, we are satisfied that the ABC maintained full editorial control over the documentary and that the editorial decisions regarding the documentary were not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests. The program is not a polemic and does not advocate for one position in the debate over another, rather it takes the viewer on a journey with the protagonists as they seek to find some common ground.

ABC TV have informed me that Dick Smith was not involved at any time in the scripting and editing of the final program. You are welcome to come to your own conclusions regarding “Dick Smith’s likely personal interests in the outcome of the doco”…

Ooh. Thanks Bob. Yes, that is very significant. There goes the ABC plausible deniability.

Wow, they thought this was not “polemic” and did not advocate one position? How blind are they. The Narrator made statement after statement speaking from the position that something “needs to be done”, and that eg: The UK was “moving forward” by taking green action. The very idea that there was a problem to solve was embedded in the doco from start to finish.

Forgive my tardiness in getting through all the comments, Jo (holiday madness). Does this not in fact say they take one side? I certainly concluded that their intent was to be one sided when I read it.

…, rather it takes the viewer on a journey with the protagonists as they seek to find some common ground.

This isn’t the statement of someone doing an objective search for the truth.

As someone who has worked in Television and taught television production I found the cheap production values of the ABC deplorable! You don’t shoot a serious doco with four talent without a sound recordist who records the whole conversation regardless of whether the camera is rolling or not as it’s the audio you are after – you can always show a cut-away shot if you don’t have the actual footage of something being said.

Really the answer is in the result as there were as many dismissive of climate change at the end as at the beginning.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.

Jo, your exemplary and single-minded focus is a breath taking a beacon of sanity in an otherwise grey ocean of nascent totalitarianism. May 2013 bring you greater things, with ever increasing traction and hard fought for satisfaction.

Further to your philosophical point; Anna Rose is clearly passionate about this subject. But she mistakes passion for correctness and justification.

Just because somebody is passionate about something, it doesn’t mean they are correct, nor that all their actions are justified.

It’s plausible to suggest the opposite; the more passionate about a subject that somebody is, the less rationale they bring to their analysis, and the more extreme the actions they are prepared to take.

In this case, it seems that Rose is woefully ill-informed about the debate, but prepared to bend the ethical rules as far as she can to get the result which fits in with her passion.

Thank you, Jo, for exposing these people for what they are; activists with an axe to grind, a platform on which to grind it, and nothing more.

It would seem that Maurice Newman as the ex Chairman of the ABC is perfectly correct in his assessment of the ABC as being captured by group think etc.

Its rather a sad indictment of our systems of government when the national broadcaster is caught out, yet again, engaging in such blatant journalistic bias and incompetence, and over a matter where its pretty clear that the subject matter scientific fraternity are also as culpable, and similarly and have their hands in our wallets.

The ABC should defunded and sold off as scrap, and the $bn a year redirected to more useful purposes, and definitely not to GW academia.

Sigh. Yes. Almost at 27mins the sound cuts out. I’m uploading a new version. But it takes a couple of hours. 1.3Gb. View 1. And View 2 cuts out at 26:20. Seems an odd coincidence. The original files are fine. I’ve watched them. Any video buffs out there…Do let me know if you have any ideas for better hosting solutions.

At risk of stating the obvious , one possibility is the video/audio format isn`t in a streaming friendly codec .There`s a swag of freeware video converters out there , pick one you like and have a shot at it or if You don`t trust the freeware ones there`s always Divx

Jo, it is fantastic that you’ve released this video. It shows how the ABC have distorted the evidence.
May I suggest that YouTube would be a good place to start with distributing it as widely as possible.

I know it seems to have been pretty well documented in the video itself, but did that agreement to only ever show it in its entirety ever get written up & signed . (questions of whose video is it anyway notwithstanding) ?

Hi Allen,
Yes, I agree. I’ve been trying to find out whether it is possible to publish a 2 hour You Tube video, but I’ve got two obstacles preventing me from doing so.

1) I can’t download a full version (the audio cuts out after about 25 minutes).
2) I don’t have a mobile phone for verification.

The information on how to exceed the 15 minute limit is available here.

I thought (hoped) that other readers were helping Jo to create an edited and enhanced version so that the video (and enhanced audio) could be more informative and entertaining. At times I found it impossible to understand what was being said and the only way I could was to read the transcript.

Transcode the original source recording to the H264/x264/AVC video codec – it is a much more efficient codec for compression and you can get a visually comparable file at half the size of that produced using either the Flash or Divx/xvid codecs.

Not sure what your original film is encoded with, but one simple freeware app that might do the conversion job for you is Handbrake. Have used it extensively to compress my DVD collection for streaming.

Like so many other Australians who get to see this ‘Insurance Video’ in full, and compare it with what the ABC ran on television, I am totally disgusted with the actions of the ABC in this matter.

When I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s our family regarded the ABC as the gold standard in reporting. In fact I’d go to say that we were ABC snobs – if it wasn’t on the ABC, it wasn’t worth watching. We watched ABC television news at 7.00pm in the evening, we listened to ABC radio for our news in the morning and at other times. We regarded ABC current affairs programs as beyond dispute and highly insightful in covering issues. Above everything else, we regarded anything that came from the ABC as ethical journalism and of high repute. That it has come to this appalling state is just so disappointing. Where did the ABC go wrong?

I guess I will be angrily mulling over this revelation by Joanne and David for weeks to come but one thing has got me shaking my head right from the start. How the hell, if the film crew engaged by the ABC and the ABC producer and Anna Rose herself, knew that the entire proceedings had been recorded by an independent third party, how the hell did they just think they would go and do what they liked and assume they’d never be called to account for it?

Having seen the ‘Insurance Video’ I believe the ABC has simply been untruthful and deceitful in dealing with this matter. How can we re-build the ABC’s shattered credibility? I am not one to say that it should just be disbanded because, for all sorts of reasons, I believe in the idea of a publically funded government owned media organisation. At heart I still want to be an ABC snob but it will take me a long time to get back into that mode.

MV, I followed your link and read your comments on the weekend unthreaded. I want to tell you that your comment that the Jews aren’t the Jews stinks. I’m not a Jew, I agree that BI is mainly rubbish, but your anti-semitic claim is more than disappointing.

Apologies for being OT, but I couldn’t let that slur pass without comment.

40 years ago my father told me that if I disagreed with something I heard on the ABC, [or read in the readers digest], I should check my details a couple of times, then if I still disagreed, ask a few knowledgeable folk.

Yes they made mistakes, but so rarely, it was more likely you had your facts mixed.

Today if you agree with the ABC, you had better check, you are probably wrong as they usually are. I can’t even watch Quantum these days.

I agree, time to cut the ABC budget by 70% diminishing by a further 5% annually.

David, I agree with you and Winston totally.I am now unable to watch anything on the ALP, I am sorry, the ABC, even though my brother still works there. I find that a majority of older people who are not internet savvy continue to rely on Aunty as their primary news service, and the oft repeted propaganda remains effective. Joel Gergis gets her 10 minutes of fame on the national news,is promptly debunked on the net, the paper withdrawn from publication, but never a word of correction from Aunty. Then Gergis gets another $350000 grant from the Aust Govt [taxpayers] to fund her next piece of usefully idiotic propaganda.

If anyone knows how to chop these into 5 segments, perhaps they can be viewed sequentially? It took about 7 attempts to upload video View II as it was. It could be it’s too difficult to upload 1.3G files without an error? But 20 minute files might be ok?

There’s a program called VLC that has a lot of options, including some media conversion (last I remember the media conversion controls are complex and badly explained, but if you search the web you can find people discussing it and maybe some walk-through.

My suggestions: try first to create an audio-only version, and upload as MP3, because that will be a lot smaller, and some people might only want that.

Try dropping the resolution and frame rate on the video and doing a conversion that way (but keep the high quality audio). The video of people standing around a table probably can lose a lot without getting to the point where people can’t follow the conversation. This will make the file smaller.

Thanks Skeptical and Tel. Knowing as much as I do about image editing, I’m wary of video editing. I fear I could lose most of my week. I can imagine it would get addictive… I appreciate the advice though. There has to be a way…

Would people really want a 2 hour audio? I can’t imagine listening that long.

You can download a 30 day trial of Adobe Premiere. Import your video file… Chop into as many segments as you like, then render them back out using the media encoder as separate clips. For the experienced this would take about 20 minutes to set a batch up. The render time may be an hour or two… However, to download your files will take time, well an hour or so at least depending on the connection… The upload of the separate bits would take a while though… And the question is, where to upload to?

Then contact a volunteer editor, and he/she teamviewer’s in to your box (teamviewer installed on theirs too) and sets up a batch render from premier. Within an hour or two, you have your separate clips, and can upload to vimeo at your leisure.

I’ve just had a look at my copy of Premier’s render options, and they have a pal widescreen Video preset for H.264. I tested a smaller res at 480×270 and it looked good enough for internet quality and reasonably small file sizes…

Or, if you want my premier settings, I can can give you a quick blow by blow how-to, so you can set up a project and export the clips to an appropriate resolution…

I think he opening line, “…and wont be selectively editted” sums her up well.

Still, she is effectively hoist to her own petard. She forms a group about ‘youth’ and then wants to be taken seriously as an adult. To me she comes across as one of those eternal uni student types who, rather then using their study years as a stepping stone to the rest of their life, embrace the culture and student groups and intend to spend the rest of their life sitting on the quad lawn telling other people the world is wrong.

I actually feel a little sorry for her as she has no real idea just how unimportant she is in life and instead honestly seems to believe she is an influentual mover.

This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.”

“The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.”

The only thing that matters is the message the editor wants to send out.

If the subject is controversial, both organisations are likely to give you a fair hearing. However, if there is a trendy/lefty/loony message to deliver, the truth goes straight out the window, as happened here in the Smith and Nasht interview with Jo.

Unfortunately, “been there, done that, got the T-shirt.” Around 20-25 years ago I was regularly interviewed by the BBC on the subjects of Africa, diamonds, gold and AIDS. Sometime the interview was edited beyond all recognition and sometimes it was fair and presented well. For example, in 1988 I was one of the first people to say there was going to be an AIDS epidemic in Africa, for which I was branded ‘a racist’, the proof being that how could I possibly say anything controversial about Afican lifestyles.

I think the problem is more to do with the culture inside these organisations that allow editors to highlight their own opinions, rather than stick to the impartial reporting as required by their charters. The bloated overpaid bureaucracies that administer (‘manage’ is too strong a word) are happy to do nothing about ensuring impartiality as long as their own personal biases on any subject are not challenged.

I with a group of workers in Wollongong formed Illawarra Against The Carbon Tax (IACT). All of the organizing group care deeply for the natural environment and have been active in the fight for social justice, particulalrly in the trade union movement. We ponyed up some small amount of money, all of which from workers, pensioners and one dear friend who has now sadly passed away. We put a full page advertisement in the local rag to advertise what was a most informative and inspirational lecture by Professor Bob Carter. I was interviewed on the local ABC before the meeting and the first question I was asked was “Was your advertisement paid for by the coal companies?”!!! It didn’t get any better.

The interesting thing about you being asked this question by the ABC employee is the fact that the ABC is funded by tax revenues. This includes company tax and various other taxes paid by ‘Big Coal’. Although it may be a vicarious link between the coal company paying its tax and the ABC reporter standing there talking to you, it is a link nonetheless.

Depending on the actual circumstance of where you work, there is a reasonable chance that the ABC employee’s wage or salary is paid for by a bigger component of money from ‘Big Coal’ than is your wage or salary. The ABC is lavishly funded and this funding is paid for by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big This, Big That, little you, little me, and so on. It is too cute by half for the ABC reporter in your case to believe that he or she has clean hands just because his/her paymaster is, one or two steps removed, the government.

Just a comment further to my previous post. I believe we have to be more than just sad or outraged about being let-down by the ABC. After all, as one of their slogans tells us, it’s our ABC. It belongs to us. We have to take further action, such as;

(1) organising to put more proactive people on the ABC Board so that the previous high standards and credibility of the ABC can be restored,
(2) approaching and emailing journalists and contacts we may know in the ABC. These approaches need not be to high level management – your local ABC news reporter on ABC radio in your local town is a good place to start. I believe that any person who works for the ABC is a valid person to whom to communicate (politely but firmly) your disappointment at this appalling case of deception. And don’t let them say, ‘I only work here – it’s not my responsibility’. Every person in the organisation needs to know how poorly we think the organisation is performing.
(3) maybe, talk with people in the ABC staff association. Surely some of them must be ashamed at the deception that has been carried out in this case.
(4) contact your local member of Federal Parliament or the Senators from your State.
(5) finally, at least try to use the official complains procedure. I could be cynical and say that it’s just a delaying process in the ABC but we have to try. My complaint of some months ago was, I believe, entirely reasonable because they were showing misleading pictures of smoke stacks (not cooling towers, smoke stacks with thick black sooty smoke coming out) when they mentioned carbon dioxide emissions. The ABC’s response was just to Stonewall, they could not bring themselves to say, ‘Fair enough, small point, but we’ll try to fix it’. (It’s not a ‘small point’ incidentally – it’s a major deception to show black sooty smoke and imply that the black soot is in some way illustrative of carbon dioxide – but I would have accepted that answer).

In conclusion, I hope the ABC can be re-built to be a fair and impartial presenter of news, events and opinions but there has to be a lot of soul searching within its Board and management to get to this desirable position. There may have to be a lot of pain too.

.
Apologies in advance David, but if you actually believe any one of your five points is actually achievable, or will make the slightest bit of difference, then you occupy a fantasy-land even more divorced from reality, than the one Anna Rose lives in.

MV, some days I’d almost swear you are a plant by fans of AGW. Your ability to pop in, and cynically stomp on the first sign of any skeptic suggesting any action other than The Official MemoryVault Approved Plan is an excellent way to quell the stirrings of a protest move. It’s uncanny. If I were funded to hire a troll to work undercover I’d be signing up someone who was more cynical than the cynics, someone who could always think of a reason for skeptics to sit back and doing nothing.

Do you really think any of us cynical skeptics think that one letter to a rep, or an ABC journo will “turn them around”?

We are all grown ups here.

One letter is another chip in the wall. Does it matter? Imagine if 100 readers wrote an email tomorrow to an ABC journo, CC’d to their local opposition member. Do you think the journo would notice? You bet. They would never admit it. Of course they would scoff. But the next time they were thinking of writing a pro AGW story, they’d do a bit more research. They’d ask slightly harder questions, and write slightly less condescending text. They might add a caveat they wouldn’t have.

And if one or two skeptics had the knack and determination — like Barry Woods did, slowly slowly, the cracks in the facade appear.

Remember, always, the journalists are mostly good people, but they’ve gone through school, university, and the ABC tea-rooms, and never once met a decent argument. Sure, they are intellectually lazy, but they are human, and because they often write to impress their peers, it will bother them if a large group of rational, polite people use the words, “badly researched”, “inept”, or “incompetent” — they think they are “investigative”. In the end, it’s not the argument that really cuts, it’s the sense that the crowd is smarter than they thought, and there is not so much thrill in bullying skeptics when they bite back. Not so much fun when the object of scorn doesn’t act like the rabid simpleton that the journo was trained to believe they were.

It will bother them to know that their audience knows more about the details than they do. And they will feel let down by the “prof” who they thought was hot to trot, but hadn’t given them the full story. They’ll mark that source as “use with care” next time. From then on, they won’t just repeat the press release, they’ll ask another alarmist who seems more careful.

And so the cycle goes. It may take a dozen rounds, but sooner or later some of the smarter ones are sizing up the exits.

The most effective letters are the polite ones, the persistent ones.

Chip away. We don’t expect them to say “thanks”, and we don’t expect them to reason. But we do expect them to notice things that hurt their status. Lazy journos follow the crowd. If the crowd silently accepts their immature, gonzo offerings without protest, how can we blame them if they never grow up?

MV, you have some ambitious excellent ideas and experience we desperately need, but if you need proof that a small number of vocal people can punch far above their weight in politics using letters and social media, look no further than the greens. IF it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.

I’d like to add yet a further comment about the idea Memoryvault has that the ABC is impregnable. There is dispute and argument within the ABC and, like all other human organisations, there are factions.

Let me tell a little story. More than a year ago now, I was invited to the recording/filming of the final episode of The New Inventors. The program was closing after many years.

We all turned up to the Ultimo studios in our dinner suits to make it a formal occasion. When we were all gathering in the foyer prior to being ushered into the studio, I became aware that there was a very quiet, low key, form of guerrilla warfare going on within the room. Members of the staff association were moving about from group to group, introducing themselves, and then giving us a talk about what a bad thing it was that the ABC was considering outsourcing so much of its television production. We were asked for our support to reverse this trend.

Without being too precious, my reaction to the approach was mildly negative. I thought, ‘Come on guys! You’ve invited me here to watch a program being made and now you’re asking me to become involved with ABC internal politics’. Another of my initial responses to this incident was to wonder, ‘If the ABC is to merely become a clearing house for outsourcing contracts, why have the ABC at all?’

Well, with the case that Joanne and David have presented here, it appears that the quality control issue of the outsourcing process has really come home to roost. I have had some contact with the outsourcing process in Australia and Asia and I understand commercial good-sense of the process in many situations. Outsourcing only delegates the process of, say, manufacturing something. It does not absolve the entity that outsources a process from the quality control of the product that is eventually presented to the market. This is the management problem that has now come home to roost for the ABC.
ABC is not just outsourcing the task of, say, putting the bristles on a toothbrush. It’s outsourcing something far more complicated and unique than that. Its duty of quality control is therefore far more onerous than that involved with a simple industrial process. It leaves me with the interesting question about efficiency in management structures at the ABC, ‘If they didn’t have time and resources to make the program themselves in the first place, how are they going to have the time and resources to ensure the program’s quality control when it is eventually presented to them in a finished form?’

Bringing this back to the function at Ultimo and the members of the staff association working the room, my observation is that there well may be people/factions within the ABC who want to get it right. And the ABC staff association might just be one of these.

Won’t have time to watch all of this prior to Christmas but will do over prior to New Year.

Thanks for the countless hours you put into this site – all your loyal blog followers are indebted to you and David for your never ending search for the truth and in exposing the fraud/scam/Agenda/whatever?

I wish you and David a very Merry Christmas and a safe and happy New Year and to all the other bloggers (including JB, Sillyfilly and all the other trolls) as well.

Wey Hey … I stumbled across transcript for this little encounter at an ABC site just a couple of weeks ago.
I imagined the 74 pages of it to be of the whole thing.
Anyway, I was thinking then what a real shame that Jo hasn’t felt inclined to publish the full uncut video.
So you can imagine my delight at waking up this morning to see what Jo had been working on and teasing the World with since Friday ( when it should have ended).

I look forward to an entertaining day of watching it. Don’t think I’ll bother with Sunday papers now.
Thankyou Jo & David

Just read the transcript, trying hard not to gag at the hostile interrogation technique. God help us all if any of these greens are ever handed control of anything essential to our way of life. Currently they are pandered to by Labor and the media and have some of their agenda fulfilled, which is more than bad enough.

I’ll second those thanks, Jo and David, having read that transcript. I would only add that calling this program “We can change your mind” is about as clever as naming a ship the “Unsinkable”. No wonder the sequence needed liberal cutting, how would they have looked if they had left all that in?

At times I have some rather impressive 3D models (Oblivion,Skyrim etc) running on My PC that depict mythical creatures roaming around a fictional world , suggesting that said “models are proof” of the existence of dragons , ogres and goblins would qualify as more than a little deranged .

“It pumped water to Brisbane during the 2011 floods. ( As if they needed more water)” [My emphasis added]

Actually, among the first things to go in a flood is the water supply. The reservoirs become turbid due to run-off, and water treatment plants are often, themselves flooded. The first requires increased filtering/settling and the second means the water supply is no longer sterile.

Using global warming as the excuse to build the plant is idiotic. It may be a Good Thing™ done too soon, for other reasons. Keeping it ready to go for the occasional emergency use is silly. There will come a time when either suitable acreage for a reservoir isn’t there, or has become so expensive as to make desalinization economic. Then would have been the time to build it. Since it’s there, that would be the time to activate it. Not now.

‘Nick’ and ‘Anna’seem utterly perplexed throughout. Victims of a hoax,they are confronted with strange creaures mouthing graphs and statisics at them, when they had been led to expect the merest baby talk.

The finest moment comes when ‘Anna’ is told models are not evidence. Where is Foucault when you need him? Nothing in her humanities degree in European irrationalism (I’m guessing) has prepared her for this – evidence? Ruling class obfuscation more like!

It must have been a relief when, back in the studio in the company of goodthinkers, she could have a relaxed discussion about the pitiable views she had heard, and the invitable end of capitalism.

Nick Minchin surprised me with his quick ability to get to the point of the issue and the number of things he had read. He was not perplexed at all. He was well versed in feedbacks and their significance. Anna thought “greenhouse absorption” was a Yes No question, and was flummoxed that we could be skeptics if we knew that CO2 absorbed IR.

Nick had charm and good manners, and if half of our politicians knew as much science as he did, we would all be about $1000 a year better off (and the rest).

The media in general couldn’t care less about honesty, integrity or ethics.
It’s all about the politics, ideology (theirs) and the money.

It amazes me that people still watch or read the news in order to “educate” themselves.
Really, they are just allowing themselves to be victims of mass consumer marketing and political propaganda.

The very concept of human induced climate change would not occur to people were it not for the medias constant bombardment of alarmist reporting. I think it’s incredible that people can become not only convinced but passionate activists f

Couldn’t agree more.
I became so angry at the propaganda on TV that a year ago I vowed I’d never watch the blighters again–and I haven;t.
It has meant all my info is sourced on the net, which is a task I enjoy, visiting quite a few blogs as well as the on line papers here and abroad.
I now recommend it as really what the Tv dishes up is asinine applied to the majority but then I found some of them do–they use social media and Utube just as voraciously and have a grasp of lots of matters, albeit not all the facts but more than Ch9 would have given them or that turd Riley on ch7 or the boys behind the sheltershed on Ten!!
I think the internet has realy meant that with half abrain and one eye on things a person can know alot more than the stupid producers on Tv give them credit for alot of the time.

The media in general couldn’t care less about honesty, integrity or ethics.
It’s all about the politics, ideology (theirs) and the money.

It amazes me that people still watch or read the news in order to “educate” themselves.
Really, they are just allowing themselves to be victims of mass consumer marketing and political propaganda.

The very concept of human induced climate change would not occur to people were it not for the medias constant bombardment of alarmist reporting. I think it’s incredible that people can become not only convinced but passionate activists for a cause they see no direct evidence of in their lives.
Human induced climate change has never been directly observed yet it forms the basis of a belief system that for some is tantamount to religion.

I had a discussion with a rookie warmist today who predictably informed me about the melting ice caps, the acidified oceans and the death of coral.

PS: your Vimeo page says to email you to download the video – why not let anyone download it? I might take a try at editing the raw footage if I could download it.

PS2: I have a lot of large files at ClimateDVD.com hosted by godaddy.com at under $10/month & I think they have removed the download limits. But I don’t know how (or if) to do streaming from there – that’s why I also use Vimeo.

[...] http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video/ When the Smith and Nasht came to our house (on behalf of the ABC) to take footage for the “I can change your mind” documentary, David and I asked fellow skeptic and camera-man Barry Corke if he could film them filming us, so we have our own copy of what happened. He agreed — it was obvious to all of us that we needed some insurance against biased edits. We all knew that petty chicanery was possible. James Delingpole had recently given the BBC three good hours of his time, only to find they trimmed all of his clever answers down, waited for him to have a hypoglycemic vague moment and then crowed about how the great James Delingpole was, can you believe, tongue tied (the failure!) [...]

Accordingly, I revived and continued some correspondence on the dumbing down of science by the ABC. It was a topic I first raised with Sir Talbot Duckmanton on April 23, 1979, so my correspondence is not inflamed by current events. It is of long consideration.

Sir Talbot’s replies were thoughtful and helpful.

With regret, I cannot talk similarly about correspondence starting on 1st February 2009, with both the ABC Audience & Consumer Affairs group and the Independent Complaints Review Panel.

The former group suffers from a lack of understanding of the methodology of science; from an immature method of conveying complexity; and from trendy obfuscation and avoidance of direct answers to direct questions. It’s kids’ stuff.

The second group was undergoing change. It seemed reluctant to act on any matter of substance. It failed to give me a clear description of its functions and powers and appeared to adopt the method of long and semi-relevant replies designed, perhaps, to wear me down before real work was needed. I know of that method.

In the exercise since 2009, I used three levels of “complaint”. They are based around the chemical, earth science and agricultural sciences, because I have graduate qualifications and a long and (modestly) rather successful related career of 35 years duration. In retirement, I have renewed my work on the philosophy of science and its progress.

They are meant to be merely introductory and illustrative, far from the end of the narrative. This letter can be read without the URL being opened.

The first exercise was a specific, single example of an uninformed gardening person advising on the use of a chemical in a way that was described as unsafe in the maker’s worksheet. Blindness could result. To this day, I do not know if the correction was made.

The second was of intermediate generality, using the topic of “organic gardening and agriculture”, a small and passing fad that is being stressed somewhat persistently by the ABC. I provided figures on its relative unimportance and invoked the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act (C’wth) 1983, including but not limited to, s.s (2) (a) (ii) of its Charter, extracted here as

(iii) the responsibility of the Corporation as the provider of an independent national broadcasting service to provide a balance between broadcasting programs of wide appeal and specialized broadcasting programs.

The impression that I drew from the ABC responses, hopefully wrongly, was that a type of Executive decision had been made to emphasise the 1% of organic agriculture to the detriment of much of the normal 99% of normal agriculture. The balance implied by the Charter simply does not exist. A professional scientist like me feels insulted by the silliness of this mysticism masquerading as science. I, for one, feel that the ABC is engaged in education of the people by deliberate propaganda that does not stand scrutiny. You might help me to resolve this, by providing me with ABC communications that might contain such directions, perhaps from Paul Chadwick’s office.

The third part of the exercise deals more generally with the words “scientific method”, named long ago but being forgotten rapidly now as some form of post-modernist science seems to be taking hold. The ABC – and it is not alone – has an emphasis that induces chemophobia and cancer phobia by measures such as suggesting natural remedies for diseases when more effective remedies have been designed by skilled scientists. You might have your people look at the courses offered in fringe medicine by many universities, some of which I have reproduced with permission at http://www.geoffstuff.com/Akeptic_shock.pdf

To whence from here?

Your intentions in the leading attachment were excellent. They appear to have gained little traction. It is almost as if scientists seek programmes on astronomy, while the ABC provides programmes on astrology. Scientists seek books that teach, the ABC provides comics.

You are in danger of losing the benefit of the learning that Julius Sumner-Miller commenced, through the desertion of his successors as they are pressured to follow certain lines that are not lines about the wonder of open inquiry. I know some of them.

I would be please to participate in a trial wherein several proposed ABC science program scripts are handed to me for comment (if within my competence) before being aired. There is no fee for this type of offer. The reward is to set the course of learning on a more steady path. Presently, the yellow brick road leads off to la-la land.

Thank you for your email. The Chairman has referred your correspondence to me for response.

I appreciate your candid feedback about your correspondence with Audience & Consumer Affairs and the Independent Complaints Review Panel (ICRP). The ICRP has been discontinued as a result of changes to the ABC’s self-regulatory framework which came into effect on 11 April 2011. However, Audience & Consumer Affairs remains a key part of this framework, and your feedback about the unit will be taken on board.

Your comments about the ABC’s treatment of science are noted and have been conveyed to relevant areas of the ABC.

In relation to the ‘three levels of complaint’ cited in your email and set out in the document to which you linked, I understand this complaint was not accepted for investigation by Audience & Consumer Affairs. The reasons for this decision were conveyed in previous correspondence.

I note your suggestion of an ‘executive decision’ to emphasise organic agriculture to the detriment of non-organic agriculture. I can assure you that no such decision has been made, and the communications you refer to do not exist.

Please be assured, your correspondence has been noted by the Chairman. Thank you for raising your concerns about these issues.

Thank you for the response below. There is a very real problem, in Australia, right now, in dealing with emergent science and improper emphasis on poor science.
It is becoming increasingly likely, as more evidence comes in each month from appropriate new instruments, that the general subject of global warming might now be dead in the water.
The ABC will gain global kudos if it admits to this possibility, at an appropriate rate and with solid evidence, not hearsay.
If Mr Newman can accept the possibility that there has been undue emphasis on the majority position to date, then the nation will have made a gain. There might be a need for a regenerated science review panel with some of the better powers that the ICRP used to exercise.
It’s not just the science of global warming that is the bother, it’s withdrawing from the relentless connection of the Earth, the Universe and Everything to this hypothesis.
How can I be of help? I’ve been part of these cycles before.

Thank you for your further email, which has been referred to me for response.

Your comments about global warming are noted, as is your suggestion for a science review panel with some of the ICRP’s powers. There are currently no plans to establish a panel of this nature.

We appreciate your offer of assistance in this area. You are welcome to contribute by participating in the ABC’s science-related interactive services, such as those available on the ABC Science portal (http://abc.net.au/science); through these services you can engage with the ABC and its audiences. If you are seeking a more direct role, you may be interested in applying for appointment to the ABC Advisory Council (http://abc.net.au/corp/abcac) when vacancies are next filled.

Thank you, Denise,
You comments are filed and I shall continue to be active. I’m fairly robust bloke of about 70 who’s not losing it, still reviewing international scientific papers. Some of the “science” material on ABC needs putting through a credibility filter because it almost reduces me to tears, which is not easy. Science has been getting really trashed in the last decade, but there are fewer and fewer observers able to make that call because too many educators are too young and have never known the better way.
You might note that the outcome of my many pages of examples that went to the ABC as a complaint has been zilch, zero, zip, nothing. Nobody said I was wrong. The problem is that nobody did anything. Old graffitti “Apathy rules, but who cares?”
That’s the next bit that the ABC has to fix, after addressing hubris*.
Regards Geoff Sherrington
Scientist.
*hu•bris (hy br s) also hy•bris (h -) n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).
[Greek, excessive pride, wanton violence; see ud- in Indo-European roots.]

END

BTW, I did apply for a position on the ABC Advisory Board. Not a single item of response was received. (I did notice in passing an existing member who was an activist for organic farming, which really put the bream on the cake because that’s what started this whole affair.)
………………………..
(p.s. For Mods: I just posted this in an older place below, please excuse my error, please feel free to remove).

Jo, I have various video/movie editing software that I use about weekly, but it’s a long job you have. It could benefit from 5 shorter chapters. Trouble is, if you seek to shorten it by cutting room floor methods, like removing the start about contracts, you personally would have to select the cuts and you don’t have the time.
There are various formats to shorten it, compressions etc, but you need to keep a full master unedited. The compresions like Mpeg and avi usually look terrible anyhow, I’d go DivX if pushed. Now that tiny cameras like the Nikon 1 can record full HD and store it, just dump it onto a memory like the camera uses. I have a couple of 32 GBs and that is enough by far.

The other suggestion is already above, compile a sound track only and post here. One does not gain all that much from facial expressions and body language. Then it’s easy to snip pasages from two movies and put them side by side to show the cut and pasters.

Utterly brilliant. I’m a pom & came here via a link on Bishop Hill’s website. It seems that the ABC, BBC & doubtless a CBC somewhere are no more than propaganda machines for . . . somebody I think I’m paying for. FWIW I’ve given up completely on the BBC in general & don’t believe anything they say about anything.

My children had been schooled to regard ‘sceptical’ as a derogatory term. It was interesting to see their reaction to my counter-question; “What is the antonym of sceptical?”. They struggled, until I pointed out that ‘gullible’ works pretty well. Given a choice between being described as ‘gullible’ and ‘sceptical’, which did they choose? Yup – I now have a couple of converts to ‘the scientific method’ & will be giving them the links to your uncut video.

The thing that bothers me most is the feeling of helplessness. Here, in England, all of the political parties are the same – shame old twaddle, just different coloured rosettes & different insulting distractions. I mean, nobody I know (including a homosexual) gives a stuff about ‘gay marriage’, but that’s what we’re being fed as the most important issue of our time.

What can I do or who can I vote for to change things? Do you peeps in Oz have any alternatives?

GREAT idea to watch the watchmen doing their dirty deed. We here in Germany are forced by law (18 EUR a month per household) to feed a gargantuan propaganda operation very much like the ABC, in our case called ARD and ZDF (yes, for good measure we feed TWO of them.), both warmist, hysterically anti-nuclear, pro renewable energy, pro Euro, pro UN, you name it.

The very few documented times they reported about climate scientists have always been hatchet jobs of the ugliest type.

I guess all of this will make room for an eery silence when warmism cannot longer be maintained in face of reality, and they will then jump on a different bandwagon without ever mentioning their despicable behaviour again.

The good news is that they are reduced to one quarter of the viewers. Especially the young generation abhors them.

So, there’s hope that these institutions will die, but probably no hope that they will change.

With all the audio/streaming problems the footage seems to be having an alternative way to get the full quality footage out there is by bit torrent , utorrent is free and there are many torrent hosting sites that are also free and have also proved to be notoriously difficult to close down .

It would have the advantage of not only being downloadable at the viewers leisure but free from the choppiness that can plague streamed video when the hosting site gets more traffic than it`s servers and bandwidth can cope with

Yes Pointman, The truth gets out in the end. But out where? with most MMGW believers having the attention span of a knat, who but the already converted will bother watching a 2 hour unedited excerpt of a previously telecast program ?
I am on a limited 3 gig wireless internet plan, so unfortunately cannot view the above footage. Has it been spliced into the remainder of the ‘I can change your mind’ program? If not then context will be lost.
Is it possible to legally challenge the ABC to re telecast the program in unedited form with regards Jo and David’s contribution ?

If there are still issues with getting the videos out there for people to see it is quite possible to host them as torrents in the bittorrent ‘cloud’

I personally have the same problem with the first video as others have experienced with the sound cutting out and the second is still downloading.

Quite conveniently, bittorrent can be used for legitimate distribution (ok, I admit to a bit of tongue in cheek) and you can even get things on it that are not illegal. You may however be labelled as a subversive IP infringer for even reading this post which has the word ‘torrent’ in it. (oh no, I did it again, said the word torrent)

OK, yes I’m a flippant bastard, but I’m trying to cope with the feeling of outrage I get as a geoscientist presented with the destruction of the scientific method and humour is all I have tonight. It’s a feeling I get all too often, last time was reading the leaked IPCC report and that was only days ago.

Torrents, yes I digress like a geomorphologist on a rambling lecture spree, once you seed the original files and they have been downloaded once or more you can leave it to the ‘seeders’ to provide the files through their bandwidth to everyone who wants to watch them.

I can probably ask a few friends to seed the files if it becomes necessary, all we need after that is a few others who will do the same and leave the copies up and we can guarantee distribution.

There are other options for hosting large files and even making the file public on a google drive account could be a possibility, I’ll go and try to upload something large to mine now and see if that is an option too.

I guess they calculate that most people will never have an opportunity to see the real thing anyway,

More likely they know that their audience won’t want to see the real thing, as it endangers their beliefs. True ‘head in the sand’ stuff. Remember how Aunty treated Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle? No such issues with Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

” the editors split and diced sentences to make it appear that David said a sentence he never actually said.”

In the U.S. (in Texas, to be precise) I believe case law establishes such a misrepresentation to be actionable as malicious libel. Not just untrue, but known to be untrue, and presented as truth for purposes of harming the person “quoted”.

It’s my understanding that Australian libel laws are more generous to plaintiffs than U.S. law, generally.

What would it take to file a Michael Mann style lawsuit — even acting pro se? What’s the minimum, a filing fee?

This is a real a bombshell. When you have a direct comparison between the “official” release by the ABC and the reality that they edited it’s going to anger a lot of people when it starts to circulate around the Internet.

My rule of thumb is to make multiple backup copies of stuff I don’t want to lose. Get multiple DVD copies of your original video as soon as you can arrange it and put them in a safe deposit box where they can’t be gotten at without the key in your possession (DVD is the best long-term storage medium, fairly compact too). I know this sounds fanatical but if what you’ve done becomes widely circulated — and I’ll be one who circulates links to it everywhere I can — then the hosting servers are bound to be attacked.

If you can get DVDs made of both your real interview and the edited special I’ll buy copies at the asking price.

I know all this is costly but maybe the right volunteer is out there somewhere.

And congratulations on getting your interview captured by your own photographer.

Joanne
My comments really concerned ‘Anna’; but they were intended to raise wider issues. I do in indeed believe you were too kind to her and her activism; for ‘men’ never do more harm than when three considerations are met:

Firstly the person must believe they are acting for the Good in some unique ‘chosen’ sense, and that anyone who opposes them is by extension, evilly motivated. Armed with this belief, anything is permitted to achieve one’s aim.

Secondly, as a result of this closed narrative, counter-examples, at best can be ignored. Or, worse, (as in this case) ideally made incomprehensible. Anna’s shuffling and lack of engagement is distinctly odd; it is as if she is puzzled by the situation.

Nick may well have been clued up;didn’t accomplish anything in the final edit, did it though? And the reason is that our main media institutions are thoroughly in hock to these terrifying ideas. This is the direct result of my generation’s takeover of the universities in the 70s; which explains a good many things besides AGW addiction.

I get my daily climate facts from the swedish “The Climate scam”. Its obvious that the public service has an international agreement to fool us all and is gouverment sanctioned to spread the propagnada. What you meet is not journalists it manipulative criminals and they are using your licensfees or taxes to f… Y .. and to fool you. All public service broadcasting is has a fake control structures of impartiality and fairness. You have to realize that in ALL countries no board ombudsman or is independent an answers to the public on the terms of the public. They alwasys keep the right and power to decide whats inpartiel biased or not.

Whats missing in all theese BBC ABC SVT CBS is en open forum where aired debates between the like you in this case and the producerson equal terms. Thay have to be FORCED to meet thier critics on equal terms nad forced to record and air that debate. Its not to “nail” thm in first hand its to make them responsibel for what they produce nad you can rest confident that if nthey knew that they may have to confront you on eqal terms after this biased sorry excuse of “doco” they wouldnt dear to.

It has to be an international public movement to set up REAL scrutany and totally independent “boards” who answers to noone else than the public it self and how that can be arranged on what terms nad not dominated by journlasits themselves is something that I reaaly am intrested to discuss with you by mail to see if we can find the structure that works for every country. Its time to reform the conditions of public service from its fundaments. All ower the world people are just fed up with the sytematic bias and to be regarded as retarded.

Now its time act and organize this movement ande be very specific of how to change the balance of power from the journalists and editors back to where it belongs and that is to the people, so it fullfills its pupose for democracy and not like now pervert it. People dont trust journalaist and there is a reason to!!

Thanks for all the good work. We really do appreciate it – even from 11,000 miles away.

Please do not let the likes of Anna Rose get you down. Any rational person will already have made up his or her mind about her. She has obviously been brainwashed at some point and thinks the rhetoric is the science. She does not have the ability to think things through either.

After your earlier posts I did watch the series but mainly to see what your kitchen looked like .

Why not close early for Christmas and enjoy yourself for a few days? We will all be here when you get back. The videos will be sorted eventually. We might even have made a New Year’s resolution to provide our friends with some small financial recompense for their unstinting efforts!

I am not sure that the Rose/Minchin program served the purpose intended by the ABC. Minchin came across as too smart and measured and Ms Rose did not show herself to be the brightest light in the harbor. Her slight girlish charm that I am sure the ABC relied on was vitiated by her occasional outbursts of petulance or as they used to say in the army, dumb insolence. If this supposition is correct, it really does not matter that they tendentiously hacked your interview, interesting though it be.

I get my daily climate facts from the swedish “The Climate scam”. Its obvious that the public service has an international agreement to fool us all and that it is gouverment sanctioned to spread the propagnada. What you meet is not journalists it manipulative criminals and they are using your licensfees or taxes to f… Y .. and to fool you. All public service broadcasters have a fake control structure of the impartiality and fairness so that you take your critical mind at rest because they fooled you that the impartielity is undere scrutany.

WE have to realize that in ALL countries no board ombudsman or officer is independent an answers to the public on the terms of the public. They alwasys keep the right and power to decide whats inpartiel biased or not nad the public intrest is cut off with no power or influence when it comes down to the bottom line.In the end its the one with the power of the media laws that controls public service and thats politicians who never will let ther possibility to control public service slip out of their hands until forced to.The power of appointments is the most common way to get your “message” trough.And the sanctions against breaches of the missions impartiality is lauhgable small, there are no risks what so ever to be biased the benefits exceedes the risks hundredfolds.

Whats missing in all theese BBC ABC SVT CBS is en open forum where aired debates between the critics like you in this case and the producers is on equal terms. Thay have to be FORCED to meet thier critics on equal terms and forced to record and air that debate. Its not to “nail” them in first hand its to make them responsible for what they produce and you can rest confident in that if they knew that they may have to confront you on equal terms in front of cameras LIVE after this biased sorry excuse of “doco” they wouldnt dear to produce it like they did.

It has to be an international public movement to set up REAL scrutany and totally independent “boards” who answers to no one else than the public it self. Editors and journalsits have to loose the power of control over how to meet thier critics as well as the conditions and what kind of critics and complains .

And how that can be arranged on what terms and not dominated by journalists themselves is something that I really am intrested to discuss with you by mail to see if we can find the structure that works for every country. Its time to reform the conditions of public service from its fundaments. All ower the world people are just fed up with the systematic bias and to be regarded as retarded.

Now its time act and organize this movement ande be very specific of how to change the balance of power from the journalists and editors back to where it belongs and that is to the people, so it fullfills its pupose for democracy and not like now pervert it. People dont trust journalist and there is a very good reason to why!! People are fed up with beeing manipulated and lied to by biased journalism.
The internet has taken away very much of medias bias power and that scares the hell out of them thats for shure.
Btu we can complain as much we like to but the only way to really change things to the better is very solid detailed propsals of HOW and WHY reforms are needed.
And thats what has to be formulated and put forward. How and who is best equped to take media into scrutany?? The public is!

Take notice in no public service company they reveal or keep track of teh volyme or inholdt of the critisism they get. Why??? hey dont wnt you to know if the viewers or listenershave reacterd the same way you have. It would spoil an opportunity to thier bias if it were displayed to you. To misrepresent the opinion is one of the most important bias tools you have in their propaganda toolbox. Its time for changes !!! BIG changes!!

On a much smaller scale … Location Newcastle; Lord Monkton’s about to make a presentation)
(as did you Jo) ABC radio happened to ask me why I was there. Answer recorded she moved to ask others then happened to sit a couple of rows back. During Monkton’s talk she fiddled with her recorder and could not have absorbed any of his arguments. Clearly completely disinterested in what he had to say.

You surely didn’t expect to be treated fairly, or be given reasonable airtime, or to have any of your points broadcast as you intended and not be altered to suit the preconceived intentions of those making the program.

[...] Sure enough. When the Smith and Nasht came to our house (on behalf of the ABC) to take footage for the “I can change your mind” documentary, David and I asked fellow skeptic and camera-man Barry Corke if he could film them filming us, so we have our own copy of what happened. [...]

So many times, Anna thought she had you and your explanation was simple, unambiguous and understandable. For a person who refers to us as deniers, I’m surprised that she wasn’t exactly aware of what our beliefs are, our sources of information and how much we have in common.
In this debate, there are more assumptions made by the believers than the deniers.

The way that doco was put together only confirmed why I haven’t watched TV for years as the producers of docos have already determined their message and only need visual content, with some optional voice track, to display their biased, and untruthful, mainly, point of view. Add in a little music, bright and cheerful for their points, sombre cello and base for the offending opposite view, and bingo, a doco to excite the gullible into thinking black is white and the sun won’t shine unless you follow them to nirvana.

This is a landmark post Jo thank you so much to you and David for maintaining the rage.

Somebody further up suggested making multiple safe copies. I would add to this the desirability of ensuring it freely available from dozens of web based locations. On the YouTube thing, if it is too big, why not break it into multiple chapters?

All of this leaves out the very real question, “What on earth is to done about a national broadcaster that sets out to deceive rather than inform, its audience?”

Lodging a complaint with the ABC is a totally futile exercise. We are right now witnessing what happens when a Government run media organisation trashes its own proud history and morphs into a partisan political lobby group. Where once we had outstanding journalists we now have political activists to the point where the rationale for the continued existence of the ABC in its present form has simply ceased to exist.

David/Jo have you tried contacting the editors of the doco that screened for them to “defend” themselves? The fact they did this in the full knowledge they were being filmed shows they are totally without scruples. Surely this is enough to ensure that people like this are totally discredited and never get work again.

MSM is dying. when a $10 hdmi cable is all u need to access decades of fascinating docus/lectures etc., and websites like jo’s & anthony’s can save hours trying to cut thru the MSM propaganda, u just know the MSM are shaking in their boots.

Many thanks to Jo, David and Barry for the information and entertainment. This was a Christmas Bonus Present. I will be watching it all again just for the pleasure of seeing the ABC discomfort and chicanery.
I took perverse delight at poor old Anna Rose’s incompetence and thickness. No doubt she will be playing with her models over the holidays to see what they ‘prove’.
Just in case we needed reminding, we can see again the ABC exposed as biased, fraudulent, incompetent CAGW Warmistas!

Congratulations – I can tell you from first hand experience that having almost everything you say edited out by ABC television producers tells you that you are onto the truth, have made no mistakes and will be proven right later on. A great incentive to keep up the good work.

I could watch “view 1″ at vimeo, but there was no voice after 26:19. On view 2 got interrupted after a couple of minutes first time. I retried video 2 a couple of hours later (now) and then it worked until 26:59 when I got no sound here too, just at the atmosphere hot spot discussion, must have been the hot spot causing it .
So I took the “bad copy” from the 4 Barry Corke’s videos offered by Vimeo and saw from 26:00 to 53:48. The sound is a little delayed but I could follow-up the conversation. After 53:48 sound dissapeared here too…:(

Well anyhow in the almost 1 hour I could hear, I was surprised to see how little prepared was Anna, especially in understanding and hearing the question skeptics say. Was good to hear the evidence that was presented to her. Very structured and clearly presented.
On her side all Anna presented as “evidence” were models. She and Nick had nothing to answer to the information that observational data contradicts the models. The many thousands of weather baloons, the ocean data:
“you say the ocean is not warming”
“no, 3000 buoys data says the ocean is not warming”
Also the temperature data measurement, and the issues pointed out.
And in front of all this evidence they missed the whole point? How could they?
And to reduce this to:
“Jo: Carbon dioxide.
Jo: There’s some small immeasurable amount.
Jo: The data says –
Joanne: (Laughs)
Jo: The planet is not going to be destroyed. ”
Well this is not biased journalism, this is the worst one could imagine.
Was great that you made this backup, it looks like it is the only way to talk with such a “journalist”.

Thanks again! The transcript Jo posts above made my day!http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/abc-doco-uncut-evans-nova-minchin-and-rose-the-full-unedited-video/#comment-1209394
Interesting to see how disruptive Max playing the puppet master can be in the conversation, and actually how much better and efficient Barry was as camera man in capturing the information and not disturbing the content.
“Anna’s understanding is overly simplistic…”
True, I have seen this with most warmist. They are comfortable with the scare, it fits their ideology, this is why they support it and have no interest in double checking the rationales.
“Anna: We know that carbon traps heat.”
No Anna, carbon does not “trap heat”. It is CO2 which is different from Carbon. CO2 does not “trap heat”, but it is opaque in certain IR bandwidth.
I think language is important and we leave again and again the warmista to define their language. No, carbon is not “dirty”, carbon dioxide is no pollution.
“David: You’re quoting authority, I’m quoting evidence and I don’t want to return to pre-enlightenment time where political authority and being politically trendy overrides scientific theory – sorry,”
Yes David thanks!
“Anna: What can we use to buy clean air, clean water and clean soil if –”
Dear Anna, its not about pollution, have you yet not understood this?
Wow, just wow.

A sad story, Jo, but hardly surprising. I wonder how you can maintain your energy and commitment in the face of such mendacity.

Ah well, I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous New Year. For this pom, you and Tommy Emmanuel (the world’s no. 1 steel-string acoustic guitarist) are the best things to come out of Oz.

I’ve used a substantioal part of my meagre download allowance, (not to mention time that should have been used for last minute xmas shopping, sigh,) to view the first 20 minutes of View 1.

A few quick observations:

1. The consternation of Ms Rose at the unexpected discovery of your own cameraman, in her words, “Somebody we don’t even know,” would point to a pre ordained hatchet job on your interview, which of course has been bourne out in the hubristic final cut.

2. The control of the ABC cameraman, in “steering” the narrative. (Is he either Smith or Nasht?) I also laughed at the same time as you, around the 19 minute mark, at Ms Rose’s blind belief that models were evidence, which the cameraman firmly steered everyone away from when David pressed the question, “What evidence do you have that CO2 did it?”

I look forward to reading the whole transcript when I have the time, thank you both for giving me a massive christmas lift, and I hope you and your families have a very merry christmas, and a happy new year.

Johnny in NQ

PS… Worth every bit of both download allowance and time. Thank you again for all you are doing to enlighten the brainwashed.. I will be very interested to see where this goes.. Good on you both!

What a lot one could say, but the attitude of the ‘Reporters’ with the two taxpayer funded cameras when they see one free-lance camera there, is just so ‘shaming and blaming’ ( a Feminist tactical ploy). Anna Rose says the ‘Creepy’ word.

Good start, ABC. Mendacity cards on the table.

What a disappointment that Rose didn’t get around to asking her hosts/interviewees if they had some naked children tied up in the basement ready to be fimed being abused later.

Also as mentioned above, a torrent would be a good idea, as would some of the one-click hosting sites. If Jo can provide a the original quality video, I can do the rest.

I’m also very good when it comes to encoding/recoding HD video. 2 hours of low motion using x264 should be very compressible. Around 500mb if in 720p. I use my own custom Handbrake settings I find are optimal.

Wow, these are fantastic. You both did an excellent job of laying out the clear evidence and responding to the wild ad hom’s that Anna had believed were true.
Can’t wait to see the whole video with sound.
I will be directing to this for my interested friends when it is uploaded.
You both are real aussie heroes.

Just A Question: Was Anna Rose told beforehand that any ad-homiem comments should be refrained from and that such comments would be removed from the final editing? That would seem to be the first point of such a debate,if the ABC didn’t have a bias towards one side,as it has.

That’s where the 28 million radiosondes, the weather balloons that have been recording since 1959 are really important. They show no increase in humidity. In fact a decrease in that humidity up at that important layer, the 10 kilometer layer where it should be increasing.

Interestingly enough, I have been reading Environment Betrayed: The Abuse of a Just Cause by Edward C. Krug.

Krug makes exactly the same argument, and references from 1985 and earlier with thunderstorms piercing the tropopause, and the natural heat-pipe of evaporation / convection / condensation. I thought I was pretty cool to have been able to notice that for myself (not the only one, not claiming real credit here).

It’s a book worth the read, four bucks on download, you can’t go wrong.

That was my first effort to understand what was going on, and even then the “glass ceiling” concept was dawning on me as weird. Tim Lambert did not actually understand my analogy and told me I was wrong, then described the same situation I was describing. There you go. Self esteem engine, as they say.

Where I sit (note below) it is still Sun. the 23rd. Insofar as Aussieland is leading the way into the 25th, I’d better get this in now:
[Hey, where’d all the exclamation marks go? Never can find things when you need them. Oh, well. I found something to use.]
Merry Christmas***********

——————
east slope (dry side) of the Washington Cascades where it is snowing – big time from here down into California. Chiefio has a post.

Someone may have already asked.But, I would have assumed that both Anna Rose and Nick Minchin would be required to approve of the documentary as it was edited and went to air. We know Annas motives for signing off on it, but what about Nick? Was he the one who had his mind ‘changed’?

Anna looked like a possum in the headlights when it dawned on her a model was just a bunch of assumption and estimates. Honestly this concept that a model is a fact is just so naive. How did Swan’s models on the surplus turn out? And as an accountant I can tell you that do 95% % of businesses financial models never turn out within a bulls roar of reality.

Anna: I understand that. I think though that like I can’t agree with what you’re saying because there’s been so many scientists that have, I feel, satisfactorily answered this. I probably didn’t communicate that particularly well because I’m not a scientist.

Which is the crux of her problem – she relies on the Argument from Authority.

She clearly believes, – has faith – that Authorities are to be trusted, will do the right thing, and have noble motives.

She can’t get her head around the “Argument from Evidence”, and that the evidence is refuting the models that predict catastrophic global warming, (and her belief/faith).

My take –

[1] She has poor training in logic and reasoning,

[2] Her thinking is not habitually grounded in empirical evidence,

[3] She does not understand why Argument from Authority is a fallacy,

[4] She does not understand that empirical evidence trumps theory,

[5] She had no understanding of what the skeptic position is, and has only been fighting against warmist strawmen prior to meeting Jo & David.

[6] She did not understand that Models are not evidence, and may still not understand that point.

[7] She is both over-confident and naive, which is always a dangerous combination in someone who is politically active.

[8] She finds herself both intellectually and morally comfortable when aligning with (rather than against) Authority.

[9] Like other Progressives, her political position is Reactionary, and she will resist change to the current status quo (and it’s current momentum) towards increased centralization of Authority.

At the introduction of the carbon tax ‘authority’ warned if we didn’t accept it, there would be more floods, droughts, bushfires and earthquakes.
How does a carbon tax control earthquakes?
Police tell us most bushfires are deliberately lit.
Dorothea Mackellar told us of floods and droughts when she was 19, nothing has changed.
We have not reached the climate extremes anywhere of the past 2 centuries.
The world is only going to end when the Sun consumes us is 3-5 billion years.

Jo, I concur with Roy Hogue at #45. I will happily pay for a DVD because this medium is readily viewable to a lot of people who are not so savvy with internet, etc. I will also send a donation to encourage your continuation of a great truth site.

I have followed your blog for a long time but this is the first time adding my two pence worth.

If someone deliberately edits your words to effect a demeaning presentation of what you have said and then broadcasts it nationally, it would seem you have been libeled in a highly damaging manner. I would think there are sound grounds for a defamation action.

Geraldine Dougue is celebrating 70 years of proud history for the ABC on Radio National
The ABC she states early in the introduction has been able to bring us major events in our history. The formation of the Australian Greens and the Sydney Gay Mardigras!
That is clearly the poor understanding of the human experience we have to suffer at the hands of this strange group of people. This groupthink would explain why Anna stands quietly, says little to expose her ignorance and fishes for the ‘gotcha’. The first cast was for David’s historical claim for ‘rocket scientist status’ and the second in the first 26 minutes for the agreed link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
If Anna was a cat you would see her tail flicking as she waited to pounce.
Well done David and Jo, you gave them so little to work with and taped to boot, they could not use you to promote their mad ideology.

Cant wait to get sound on the doco. I’ buy a copy or two. In the Doco, David said something like; it is well known that CO2 absorbs heat from infra red radiation to a small degree. Is there a reference to infrared radiation shone at CO2(of atmospheric conc) with resulting temperature change?

Jo, in your discussions with Anna she seemed to try to paint you as a conspiracy nut since you were telling them big government money was behind the CAGW global warming scare. With your blog post you have demonstrated that the MSM is also behind this scam. It would seem to me you could ask to meet with them again and discuss on camera the
way in which the whole interview was spun.

we are all waiting for the second shoe to drop with either the majority, or even better the hardline climate activists (that are motivated by ..hubris ?, …) …it ain’t going to happen…

the hardline aren’t interested really in the details, imho, they see they have enough resources and own media to sow enough confusion for the majority for long enough, who as usual don’t care, until things are really bad

they are in the drivers seat and aren’t making space voluntarily for us doubters

I have thought for a long time it would be nice to have a list of the major issues and all of the various subplots that branch off – it would be large – very large – perhaps it already exists somewhere in c.space

many subplots fall under a number of banners : to whit,
media bias, ABC bias, ABC independence from reasoned scrutiny (the pedophile argument of Williams and it’s (ABS complaints response) subsequent “no-problem here folks , move along” )
Government funding of a left organisation that legitimises left views that is stonewalling to alternative views
Govt moves to legislate against ‘offensive’ views, nutters-like-Parncutt that promote violence against alternative views

they say one should pick one’s battles, and here there seem to be a million different skirmishes to choose

regarding the ABC, I think the time is ripe for a curative change :
i would support a campaign to split the ABC into 1 news & current affairs TV and radio ,2 children’s television, 3 australian drama Tv and radio, and 4 sport TV and radio, 5 ABC FM

3 way funding of ach entity via (i) subscription, (ii) advertising and (iii) a per-capita funding option – which should be exercised at the ballot box at the time of half senate elections- or as needed to fit with federal elections, for the coming 3 years- my ‘voted funding’ would be 2,3 and 5 for example, some may elect to not fund the ABC at all
(indeed there are other areas of govt expenditure that may benefit from direct elector decisions)

the solution to biased abc presenters who hide behind ‘editorial neutrality’ is to give the federal political parties the option to have a role in choosing ABC presenters, based on their electoral percentages
this would require quite some discussion, but could be workable
and would start by being part of electoral party platforms

I love how affronted Anna Rose was when you explained that you wanted to record the entire interview. It showed that you were wise enough to expect the hatchet job the ABC had slated for you. Nobody that viewed both videos (the 5 minute creatively edited version, and the full 2 hours of footage) could mistake the ABC’s purpose as anything other than to make the skeptics appear silly. I think all skeptics should insist on this clause and publish complete unedited interviews to show the extent of the bias of different broadcasters.

I have just watched the uncut full conversation on Youtube, and all I can say I am totally disgusted with the editing practices used to producee the final cut of the documentary aired on the ABC back in April 2012. It begs the question how many of the segments with other independent scientists was so radically cut to produce a very one sided documentary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kd6x9Q81RWk

The funniest thing in this documentary which didn’t seem to be picked up by Nick Minchin was that the Hawaiian scientist admitted that CO2 levels had been as high 1 million years ago!

When asked by Anna ‘Has the CO2 been this high before?’ he repled ‘Not for about 1 million years’. LOL! She then said she was scared!

I wonder who was burning the fossil fuels 1 million years ago. It seems odd that there would be such high CO2 back then since the earth was inhabited by pre-human hominids (probably about 20,000 in total) that were hunting and foraging rather than engaged in the damaging industrialisation that’s supposed to be causing high CO2 emissions. I do find this so called documentary pointless and irritating. Do we really need to engage in any more of this rubbish when all evidence indicates that the earth has been hotter than it is today, has experienced at least as high CO2 levels and is headed for another ice age?

I’m quite certain that this is becoming more of a religion than a science and in fact I find it is. It’s called ‘Gaia’ or ‘Mother Earth religion’. Bolivia has even passed a new law on the Rights of Mother Earth! So climate change science is less of a concern now than climate change religion. You don’t need scientific proof of a religion and so if it gains momentum of course you can justify almost anything. There is no human morality or ethics in this religion as there are no ‘human rights’. Only the rights of nature or ‘mother earth’. This then leads to a justification (religious) for murdering millions of people and fulfilling the 85% population reduction planned by the UN and documented in UN Agenda 21. Take a look at the article called A New Legal Paradigm: Towards a Jurisprudence Based on Ecological Sovereignty by Peter Boulo in the current edition of the Macquarie Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law. Link: http://www.law.mq.edu.au/research/law_journals/macquarie_journal_of_international_and_comparative_environmental_law/

If we’re going to go to these incredible lengths and spend billions in preparation for this coming of catastrophe predicted by these mother earth religious fanatics then there’s a definite case for preparing for the second or even first coming (depending on your religious persuasion) of Jesus Christ! We absolutely MUST prepare for this. It’s so urgent and if we don’t we are all doomed for an eternity in hell. In response to this threat we should spend 50 billion dollars world wide on huge statues of Jesus Christ so that we will be sure he sees them and will look favourably upon us. We should also get all nations to enact the Ten Commandments as law. We should set up thousands of not for profit organisations devoted to ‘building consensus’ and converting people all over the world. Whichever nation spends the most money and builds the biggest shrines to Jesus will surely have their citizens saved. This is about as ludicrous as the suggestions for how to prevent the coming of climate catastrophe that is predicted by what is now a religion and not a science.

Another point I’d like to make is that there is a high chance that these fraudsters and scare-mongers are contributing to the increase in youth suicide and this needs to be looked at very carefully. Many young people believe they have no future because of climate catastrophe as that’s what they’re being told by this lie machine. Anna Rose has no idea what she is doing and her unwillingness to listen to reason indicates that she has a political career in mind for herself. She is a young-ish person being held out to have influence and she has many young followers. It annoys me that educational instutions will allow people like her into their schools to frighten young people with lies. They need to be made responsible for this. Our children are frightened about the future and are not only being told they are the cause of it but that they have to fix it. It’s very dangerous and we need to take it more seriously than just laughing off these lies. They are becoming incredibly dangerous to our young people.

Another funny thing in the ‘documentary’ – Anna Rose’s farmer uncle knows what’s going on with climate because he’s been on the land for 26 years and he has to plant the seeds earlier now than before! ROFL.

I’ve made my disgust with the ABC known to my federal MP, again. He will be a minister after the next election and I won’t let up on him until I hear that the ABC is going to be subject to a complete overhaul, or dissolution. These days they are just a part of the ministry of information of a government that is heading towards totalitarianism.

And for all the decent folks at the ABC I am not sorry for seeming harsh. You work there so show some spine and get your biased colleagues back to doing what they’re meant to do.